The following is a letter written to the agencies listed below to help our Columbia River spring king fishery for the benefit of Sportsmen. Please respond.

Thank you.


> The board of NSIA has sent the below letter to the agencies, commission
and
> directors in both states. If you are interested in adding your voice to
this
> issue, we encourage you to send faxes to the Chairs, Governors, or make
phone
> calls. If you need phone numbers or information, do not hesitate to
contact
> our office @ 503 631 8859. This letter will have a great deal less
meaning,
> if YOU DON'T FOLLOW Through with your message. Basically, Oregon and
> Washington cannot afford to turn away from the tourism and economic
> development dollars that we stand prepared to give back. If you are
> passionate about this, we can also hook you up with your legislator.
Things
> won't change if you are silent. As always, remember that while you have
> every right to be upset (and you should be), stay firm but stay
professional.
> -Liz
>
> April 23, 2003
>
>
> Will Roehl, Chairman
> Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission
> VIA FACSIMILE: 360-733-1230
>
> John Esler, Chairman
> Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission
> VIA FACSIMILE: 503-464-2944
>
> Honorable Chairs Esler and Rohl,
>
> On behalf of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, we are
writing
> to convey the repeated disaster and unrealized opportunity the sport
fishery
> in the Columbia has been for the economies of Oregon and Washington. The
> NSIA consists of over 300 businesses in the Northwest and beyond. Our
> industry currently employs over 36,000 in family-wage jobs and generates
over
> $3.6 Billion in economic benefit to the northwest.
>
> We are compelled to write after watching three years of management that
has
> turned away dollars and jobs for the region, hurting economies and costing
> the agencies desperately needed license sales that could be nurtured and
> enhanced.
>
> The non-treaty shares of the Snake River Spring Chinook impacts are
managed
> for 2%. The preseason allocations were: approximately 1.01 for the
> recreational fishery below Bonneville, approximately .1 for the
recreational
> fishery from Bonneville to McNary (1.11 total), .59 for the mainstem
> commercial fleet, and .3 for sport fisheries above McNary, the Select Area
> Commercial Fishery and management error.
>
> On Tuesday, the joint staffs of Washington and Oregon presented data and
> testimony that indicated that the recreational fishery will likely close
at
> impacts that are considerably below the amount negotiated and set
preseason.
> Using the figures from the Joint State Fact Sheet dated April 22, 2003
> (attached) the recreational fishery below Bonneville is projected to close
> with .79 impacts, rather than the 1.01. The recreational fishery will
lose
> 22% of our fishery.
>
> The mainstem sport fishery is expected to attract 150,000 angler trips by
the
> end of the next fishing period (4-23 thru 4-26) Losing 22% of our fishing
> time represents a loss to communities up and down the river in both states
of
> over 42,000 angler trips. (150,000 = 78% of 192,300). Since every angler
> trip expends approximately $100.00, the economy loses $4,200,000. Much
of
> this accrued in cancelled bookings, for the guide, charter and hotel
> services, cancelled orders of manufactured goods and a disproportionate
> amount of the losses were heaped upon a section of the business community
> unfortunate enough to be located above the I-5 Bridge. Between
financially
> counterproductive management decisions in the sturgeon allocations, and
the
> reassignment of the sport impacts to the commercial fleet, we fear that
some
> businesses will not make it, due to cancellations.
>
> The Commercial fleet was managed to fish far into the buffer of .3% that
is
> maintained for fisheries above McNary Dam, management adjustments, and a
> small amount for the select area fisheries. In addition, Department staff
> were signaling a closure for the mainstem sportfishery. The fact sheet
> indicates that 22% of sport impacts below Bonneville would be reassigned
to
> the commercial fleet. With a different management decision, a portion of
> that .3% buffer could have been utilized by the sportfishing community,
and
> the tiny sliver of impacts would have translated into tens of thousands of
> angler trips, and sorely needed economic opportunity to small communities
> like Camas, N. Bonneville, Cascade Locks and many others.
>
> This sport fishery is a lost economic opportunity. The people of Oregon
and
> Washington, struggling with a recession, deserve better. Our unemployment
> rates are among the highest in the nation. As the sportfishing industry
> loses, communities, with their hotels, gas stations, restaurants and
stores
> lose, the departments lose license sales and sadly, they lose credibility
> with the stakeholders who are footing the bill. Essentially this kind of
> management alienates the department's best partners. This is at a time
when
> you desperately need to sell licenses to compensate for loss of general
fund
> and to support your conservation mission.
>
> Front-loading of the commercial fishery and using the sport fishery as a
> buffer precipitated closures in both of 2001 and 2002 as well. Instead of
> implementing a buffer to prevent unnecessary economic hardship, the
opposite
> was done this year. Based on preseason run forecast, the commercial fleet
> fished 39% over their impacts in three days. In one 10-hour tide, the
> commercial fishery caught all but .09 of their entire mainstem allocation.
> Add to this the problems with data and mortality, and the economic
> deprivation this imposes on so many communities and the public wants to
have
> answers.
>
> It was presented that the commercial fleet was pleased to have made
$300,000
> in their last fishery. Does this make any sense while another fishery
loses
> over $4 million? Does it make sense to turn away out of state money that
> Oregon and Washington so very much need? We know that we cannot afford to
> turn away these customers, and wonder how the state agencies can afford to
do
> so. The customers we lose are the customers you lose, too.
>
> While it saddens us, we must insist that the Department halt all
commercial
> fisheries while they are over their impacts. It is exceedingly
distasteful
> to forego the select area fisheries where there is so much "bang for the
> buck". This year the commercial fleet kept 3,173 spring Chinook in the
> mainstem for an impact of .668%, while the select area fisheries harvested
> 3,054 chinook for a projected impact of .164. At this point, it is
> unacceptable to use up any of the sportfishing allocation, regardless of
how
> small.
>
> We share department staff's enthusiasm and hope that the eventual run size
> will be larger, and the impacts may fall into the preseason allocations.
Now
> there are only two outcomes for the season: 1) The run is larger and the
> commercials were able to access all their upriver impacts while we had to
> watch our pass by or 2) The run does not come in larger and we were shut
down
> due to over fishing by the commercial fleet.
>
> Either outcome is unacceptable. We do not expect the public to continue
to
> tolerate the economic hardships caused by this sort of fishery management.
> The size of the fleet, the release mortalities caused by nets, the
steelhead
> encounters and the very small portions given non-treaty fishers call into
> question the existence of a commercial fleet in the mainstem. There are
> nearly 10,000 fish available for the commercial fleet in the Select Area
> Fisheries, and the tribes will soon have their catch available to the
public.
>
>
> We fully recognize that this outcome is not what staff would have wished
for.
> What we want is direction from the commissions that will help staff avoid
> these economic disruptions. The question is, will WDF&W and ODF&W continue
to
> turn their back on the vibrant, growing economic blessing known as a
> world-class sport fishery? We expect the departments to plan for a
future:
> Where will we be with this fishery in 10 years?
>
> How can we plan for and benefit from economic growth in the future when we
> continue to be hamstrung by allocations from the past. There are options
> that do maintain vibrant commercial and sport fisheries that do not
require
> that the commercial fleet release nearly two fish for every one that is
kept,
> do not handle listed steelhead, and do not shortchange the economic
> development and tourism potential of a vibrant mainstem sport fishery.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
>
> Dan Grogan, Fisherman's Marine & Outdoor Liz Hamilton, Executive
Director
> President, NSIA Northwest Sportfishing Industry
Association
>
>
>
>
> Scott Weedman, Three Rivers Marine
> Board Member, NSIA
>